|
|
Enron Mail |
SUe--my understanding of the Ohio legislation is that the narrow definition
is applicable to INCUMBENT local exchange companies and the services that they provide and that the bill did not take the extra step of extending the concept to help CLEC's fall under less scrutinty. You questions/ideas are good ones though. I'm forwarding this email to our local counsel and Barbara and I will follow up. Sue Nord 01/01/2001 12:59 PM To: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald_Lassere@enron.net, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Stephen D Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Xi_Xi@enron.net cc: Subject: Re: Ohio Telecommunications Legislation The idea of using legislation to more narrowly tailor PUC jurisdiction over the local loop seems promising. Barbara/Sue: do you know how the various interests have lined up around this legislation? Did NARUC get involved? All: If data services were exempt from CLEC licensing requirements, would we still need to be licensed as a CLEC to sign interconnection agreements with incumbents? If so, what would have to change to allow us to sign interconnection agreements (and get wholesale pricing for UNEs) without being a CLEC? Susan M Landwehr 12/27/2000 04:55 PM To: Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, scott_bolton@enron.net, Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron Communications Subject: Re: Ohio Telecommunications Legislation MArgo--as is indicated in the body of the information that you send, the stated reason for the changes is to more narrowly define LOCAL services so that other services would fall outside of the more strict regulatory oversight of the PUC. Specifically they include voice communications, and take out data and image communications (this is good). However, our experience so far with the PUCO has not indicated that there is going to be a whole lot of streamlining as a result of this legislation---they still have way too many hoops to jump thru as far as we're concerned! Margo Reyna 12/14/2000 03:30 PM To: Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Ohio Telecommunications Legislation Sue, I found the following in a recent Focus Notes issue dated December 8 from RRA: "Ohio - Telecommunications Legislation--On December 7, 2000, the Ohio House passed Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 235 by a 77-8 vote. SSB 235, if enacted, would amend current law to redefine the term "basic local exchange service" for all regulatory purposes. On December 5, 2000, the bill was unanimously passed by the Senate. SSB 235 will be submitted to Gov. Robert Taft (R), who has expressed support for the bill. Currently, basic local exchange service is defined as access to and useage of telephone company-provided facilities that enable customers, over a local network, to originate or receive voice grade, data, or image communications. SSB 235 proposes that local exchange service be redefined as end-user access to and usage of telephone company-provided services that enable a customer, over the primary line serving the customer's premises, to originate or receive voice communications within a local service area. Local exchange service would consist of the following: local dial tone service; touch tone dialing service; access to and usage of 911 services; access to operator services and directory assistance; provision of a telephone directory and a listing in that directory; per call, caller identification blocking services; access to telecommunications relay service; and, access to toll presubscription, interexchange and/or toll providers, and networks of other telephone companies. Under SSB 235, the Ohio Public Utilites Commission (PUC) would be able to adopt alternative regulation plans for incumbent local exhange companies that do not require pricing or earnings restrictions on fully competitive services, especially on a service such as digital subscriber line (DSL), which is provisioned through the upper-level spectrum of the local loop. In addition, the law would change the scope of the PUC's merger-related authority as it pertains to telecommunications companies. Under current law, a company must obtain PUC approval prior to its acquisition of a basic local service provider in Ohio. If the definition of basic local service becomes more narrowly defined by SSB 235, the PUC's jurisdiction over certain mergers may be eliminated. Is this useful, and is it something that we care about? Margo Reyna Regulatory Analyst Enron Corp., Government Affairs Phone: 713-853-9191
|